http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0104-530X3595-16
Resumo: Projetos fazem parte das atividades organizacionais e têm impacto direto nos resultados e no desempenho das organizações. A melhoria no desempenho da Gestão dos Projetos pode trazer efeitos positivos para as organizações. O Gerente de Projetos, como responsável inal pelos resultados dos projetos, tem em suas características pessoais fatores que podem impactar o Desempenho dos Projetos. Este estudo teve como objetivo, analisar as características pessoais do Gerente de Projetos em relação a seus efeitos no Desempenho dos Projetos, através de uma pesquisa empírica com 244 gerentes de projetos. Os resultados mostraram que Habilidades, Conhecimentos e Atitudes afetam diretamente o Desempenho dos Projetos e que os Traços de Personalidade não têm efeito direto, porém indireto, por afetarem as Atitudes. Os resultados ainda mostraram que a certiicação em Gestão de Projetos não impacta diretamente o Desempenho dos Projetos, mas tem um efeito moderador nas relações entre Habilidades e Conhecimentos do Gerente de Projetos e o Desempenho da Gestão do Projeto.
Palavras-chave: Gerente de projetos; Competências; Personalidade; Desempenho.
Abstract: Projects form part of organizational activities and have a direct impact on the organization’s results and performance. Improving project management performance can have a positive effect on an organization. Being ultimately responsible for project results, the project manager has factors within its personal characteristics that may affect project performance. The purpose of this study is to analyse the project manager’s personal characteristics in relation to its effects on project performance using an empirical survey of 244 project managers. The results show that skills, knowledge and attitudes directly affect project performance and that personality traits do not have
direct effects, but indirectly affect attitudes. The results also show that certiication in project management does not
directly affect project performance but has a moderating effect on the relationship between the project manager’s skills and knowledge and project management performance.
Keywords: Project manager; Skills; Personality; Performance.
Influence of the project manager’s personal
characteristics on project performance
Influência das características pessoais do gerente de projetos no desempenho dos projetos
Ralf Luis de Moura1 Teresa Cristina Janes Carneiro1
Bruna Demoner Diniz1
1 Programa de Pós-graduação em Administração – PPGADM, Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo – UFES, Av. Fernando
Ferrari, 514, Goiabeiras, CEP 29075-910, Vitória, ES, Brazil, e-mail: ralfmoura@gmail.com; teresa.janes.carneiro@gmail.com; bddiniz@gmail.com
Received Nov. 11, 2016 - Accepted May 1, 2017
Financial support: None.
1 Introduction
Projects are organisational activities and arise in organisations for several reasons, such as market demands, strategic opportunities or needs, technological advances, and legal requirements. They have a direct effect on the organisation’s results (Scott-Young & Samson, 2008). For this reason, projects, project performance, and their antecedents are still the frequent subject of research (Anantatmula, 2015).
According to Kerzner (2010), much of project performance can be attributed to the personal characteristics of the project manager (PM). Some theorists emphasise that behavioural aspects associated with the PM, such as attitudes (Kerzner, 2010) and
interpersonal knowledge and skills (Lechler, 1998; Posner, 1987), are related to project performance (El-Sabaa, 2001; Thomas & Mengel, 2008; Kerzner, 2010; Thal & Bedingfiel, 2010). However, there is no consensus or uniformity in regard to the methods of measuring the PM’s personal characteristics.
According to PMI’s Industry Growth Forecast, between 2010 and 2020, 15.7 million new PM positions will be created globally in only seven major industry branches (PMI, 2012). The expected growth in project management professionals in Brazil in 2015 was 2.2%, even in a recession scenario, according
demonstrate the growing importance of professional project management in organisations (Hurt & Thomas, 2009) and the relevance and importance of studying the characteristics of this professional.
Organisations give the PM inal responsibility for
steering and delivering project results. Her tasks include taking responsibility for coordinating and integrating activities in various technical and functional lines and managing communications between stakeholders. According to the PMI (2012), the PM’s daily activities include management of the project scope, time, risks, cost, quality, and relationships with suppliers, among others. To that end, it is necessary for the PM to have technical skills as well as team management and
negotiation skills, inancial acumen, and business skills,
combined with an understanding of organisational policy, to meet the project objectives and to meet or exceed stakeholder expectations (PMI, 2012). Kerzner (2010) states that project management professionals must have behavioural and professional skills that are compatible with the function.
Personality can be deined as the external or visible
aspects of an individual’s characteristics. They are
the attributes of an individual that deine how she
is perceived by others. The term “personality” encompasses a number of social, subjective, and emotional qualities (Schultz & Schultz, 2009). Allport (1961) proposes that human personality can be understood by analysing personality traits that combine to generate different personalities. According to McCrae & John (1992), personality traits are the basic dimensions of personality, that is, the most
signiicant and stable forms by which individuals
differ in their emotional, interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and motivational styles.
The PM is responsible for steering all aspects involved in a project and, as such, has the power to affect project performance and results. Therefore, one can appreciate that there is a need to understand the factors that affect her performance as a manager. Based on the above, the following questions emerge:
How much can the personal characteristics of the person in charge of project management affect the end result of a project? Which personal characteristics associated with the PM’s professional skills have more weight in this relationship?
The objective of this study is to analyse the PM’s personal characteristics in respect to their effects on project performance and to explore these relationships. To provide answers in this regard, the main skills, knowledge, and attitudes (SKA) associated with the PM in the literature are examined, and a structural model is created by relating these personal characteristics to project performance. This paper is organised as follows. The following section presents the search model and theoretical concept, followed by the
methodological procedures and presentation of the results. The results are then analysed and discussed;
inally, conclusions are drawn, paving the way for new
study opportunities and for discussing the practical implications of the results.
2 Theoretical foundation
2.1 Project performance
Many projects fail to meet expectations (Williams, 2005), and therefore, there is much discussion about project success. However, there is consensus that determining the success of a project is a complex task (Milis & Mercken, 2002). Success criteria have evolved (Kerzner, 2010) since the 1960s, when only technical aspects were considered, passing through the iron triangle (time-cost-scope-quality) in the 1970s, customer satisfaction in the 1980s, and organisational effects in the 1990s (O’Brochta, 2002; Ika, 2009), to the latest criteria, which consider social and environmental impacts (Kerzner, 2010).
Studies such as those by Wit (1988), Atkinson (1999), Lim & Mohamed (1999), Cooke-Davies (2002), Kerzner (2010), and Anantatmula (2015) have discussed project success criteria from various perspectives. These studies include technical aspects that are considered easy to measure, and subjective
aspects, which are often intangible and dificult to
measure (Freeman & Beale, 1992). Wit (1988) and Cooke-Davies (2002) distinguish between two broad categories of success criteria: project success criteria and project management success criteria. Freeman & Beale (1992) argue that the criteria with a greater subjective element, such as organisational effects and stakeholder’s perceived satisfaction, are related to project success, whereas technical aspects relating to the triple constraint (time, scope, and quality) are measurement criteria related to project management success.
Project management success is therefore measured using tangible technical criteria such as measured variables. In general, technical aspects include the four dimensions in the classical version of the iron triangle: time, cost, scope, and quality (PMI, 2012; Ika, 2009). These technical criteria form the basis of research relating to project success (Atkinson, 1999) presented in this paper and do not measure project success but, rather, project management success. Because they are proxies for performance, in this work, the terms project management success and project performance are used interchangeably.
as possible to the amount initially budgeted. Quality control is directly related to meeting requirements and customer satisfaction. The PMI (2012) states that scope management includes activities that aim to ensure that the project delivers all of the agreed-upon requirements.
2.2 Personal characteristics
Personal characteristics are the subject of several academic studies. Pérez & Rodríguez del Bosque (2013) study the personal characteristics of consumers regarding the perception of corporate social responsibility; Grygus & Prusik (2015) analyse the personal characteristics of health professionals, and Bordovskaia & Kostromina (2013) researched the personal characteristics of students. Each of the
studies involved seeks to ind common characteristics
to understand the behaviour of these individuals. The personal characteristics of a professional appear
in the scientiic literature as competencies. Zarifian
(2003) understands competence as the ability to take initiative, the ability to have a practical understanding of situations based on knowledge, and the ability to mobilise a network of actors and to share actions and responsibilities. Le Boterf (2003) argues that competence is the result of a combination of personal resources and characteristics such as knowledge, skills, qualities, experience, and cognitive skills. Dutra (2001), Fleury (2002), Lustri et al. (2005), and Durand (2006) describe competence across three dimensions: a combination of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, which includes technical issues, cognition, and behaviour.
This study is based on the understanding that competence is a composite of the SKA dimensions, which indicate what the professional knows, her desire to want to do or make something happen, and her ability to know how to do it (Ajzen, 2005).
Knowledge is a structured set of assimilated information that allows the world to be understood. It includes access to data and the ability to turn them into usable information (Pires, 2005). Skills are the
ability to act concretely in accordance with pre-deined
objectives and are related to empiricism. They are related to knowing how to do something or the ability to make productive use of knowledge (Pires, 2005). Attitudes refer to psychological tendencies, memory, and the evaluation of objects or entities (Bagozzi et al., 2002). Ajzen (2005) states that attitudes are hypothetical latent characteristics that can only be inferred from external, observable cues. An attitude is essentially the motivation (desire, commitment, determination) of an individual in terms of proactively mobilising the resources available for use in the situation with which she is faced (Durand, 2006).
2.3 Personality traits
Personality can be defined as the dynamic organisation within the individual’s psychophysical systems that determines her behaviour and thinking
(Allport, 1961). Personality is a very broad ield of
study that has been conceptualised through various theoretical perspectives that contribute to understanding the individual differences related to an individual’s behaviour and experiences (John & Srivastava, 1999).
Nicholson (2000) deines personality as the
“permanence of character”. Buchaman & Huczynski
(1997) deine personality as “the psychological
qualities that affect the typical behavioural patterns of an individual in a distinctive and conscious manner, through different situations over time.” Schultz & Schultz (2009) argue that personality represents the visible or external aspects of an individual’s characteristics.
Personality can be measured by means of multiple instruments. One succinct measuring instrument that allows researchers to understand certain personality
trait domains in a simpliied yet comprehensive manner
is known as the Big Five Traits (John & Srivastava, 1999; Gosling et al., 2003).
This instrument includes ive areas, known as
personality traits, that represent personality at a wide level of abstraction. Each dimension represents a
summary of a set of speciic personality traits (John &
Srivastava, 1999). The Big Five is a taxonomy used in
the ield of psychology (Goldberg, 1990) that, although
not universally accepted, constantly appears in major studies relating to personality (Gosling et al., 2003). The Big Five model organises the characteristics of
an individual into ive areas: openness to experience,
conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, and extroversion (Soto & John, 2009).
Extroversion represents the comfort level in respect to relationships. Extraverts tend to be gregarious, assertive, and sociable. Agreeableness refers to the propensity of an individual to love others. Highly
agreeable people are cooperative and conident.
Conscientiousness is a reliability measure. A highly conscientious person is responsible, organised, reliable, and persistent. Neuroticism (emotional instability) represents the ability of a person to not withstand stress. Those with high emotional instability tend to be nervous, anxious, depressed, and insecure. Openness to experience considers a range of interests and fascination with novelty. Open people are creative, curious, and artistically sensitive (Gosling et al., 2003; Soto & John, 2009).
2.4 Personal characteristics of the PM
a growing interest in mapping this professional’s characteristics (Crawford, 2005). The PM’s characteristics include professional skills, professional experience, and personality.
Personal characteristics apply to any individual or professional; therefore, in terms of the PM, it is
necessary to seek speciic studies to give theoretical
support to the research. The personal characteristics of the PM are a theme that is widely explored in
the scientiic community. In the mid-20th century,
Gaddis (1959) discussed what a PM in the technology industry did, what type of professional she should be, and what training was a prerequisite for success.
In their study of the PM’s role and abilities, Sbragia et al. (1986) claim that much of the project’s success depends on the PM’s possession of a unique set of skills, classifying them into three families: knowledge (what the individual knows), attitudes (what she thinks about herself, her work, and other aspects of her environment), and skills (what she can do).
Different studies have analysed the relationship between the PM’s profile and project success (Haggerty, 2000; Lampel, 2001; Brill et al., 2006; Fisher, 2011). Others have compared functional
managers and PMs in terms of proile, attributes, and skills (El-Sabaa, 2001) and have identiied the knowledge areas and proile required for the PM
in areas such as construction (Fotwe & McCaffer, 2000; Lampel, 2001). Studies on this topic offer different forms of measurement involving different indicators, and one aspect of such studies has been to identify and consolidate the main characteristics
discussed in scientiic circles. To that end, a literature
search was performed and its result consolidated and summarised to form a questionnaire, as described in the tables in Appendix A. The personal characteristics
identiied form a basis for formulating the constructs:
knowledge, skills, attitudes, and personality traits. The proposed model is based on the assumption proposed by theorists that the characteristics comprising the PM’s skills, knowledge, and attitudes have a direct effect on project performance (Haggerty, 2000; Lampel, 2001; Brill et al., 2006; Fisher, 2011; Fotwe & McCaffer, 2000; Lampel, 2001; El-Sabaa, 2001; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000). The following hypotheses
are therefore deined based on the theoretical arguments
presented:
• H1a: The PM’s attitudes affect project performance;
• H1b: The PM’s skills affect project performance;
• H1c: The PM’s knowledge affects project performance.
Personality traits appear in scientiic studies
relating to work performance (Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 1993) and are considered relevant characteristics in the study of professional performance. The PM’s professional performance may affect the results of her work, thus giving rise to the following hypothesis:
• H2a: The PM’s personality traits affect project performance.
The specialised literature relates personality traits and attitudes. Personality traits, in the context of personal characteristics (Durand, 2006), are linked to psychological tendencies, memory, and the evaluation of objects or entities linked to attitudes and behaviour (Bagozzi et al., 2002). Based on this theoretical approach, it is expected that personality traits affect the PM’s attitudes, leading to the following hypothesis:
• H2b: The PM’s personality traits affect the PM’s attitudes.
2.5 Certiication
Turner and Huemann (2001) state that competence
in the project management ield is based on knowledge
and experience. According to these authors, the supply of formal project management education programmes is essential to the development of the desired competencies. To determine whether the desired standards of knowledge and skills have been achieved by a professional, it is necessary to conduct
an evaluation of the professional’s qualiications
(Hartman & Skulmoski, 1999). Therefore, the purpose
of certiication is to recognise a professional’s skills
and knowledge.
The purpose of certiication in project management
is to provide recognition of the PM’s professional competence (Hartman & Skulmoski, 1999; Turner & Huemann 2001), proving her knowledge, experience, and skills in project management.
There are several certiications on the market, some
focused on knowledge tests offered by professional associations, such as the Project Management Professional (PMP) of the Project Management
Institute (PMI); certiication offered by the Australian
Institute of Project Management (AIPM), which is based on Australian national competency standards
(AIPM, 1996); certiication from the Association
for Project Management (APM) in the UK, which uses its own knowledge base; and Prince2-Projects in Controlled Environments, offered by APMG
International. There are also certiications that, in
the IPMA Competence Baseline (ICB) document (Artto, 2000).
Professionals with certiication in these methodologies
are presumed to tend to know these methodologies better and to therefore achieve better results in the management of their projects (PMI, 2012).
According to these methodologies, certiication
affects the PM’s knowledge and skills and, in this case, would presumably have a moderating effect on project management performance (Hartman & Skulmoski, 1999). The following hypotheses are
deined based on these statements:
• H3a: Certiication in project management
has a moderating effect on the relationship between the PM’s knowledge and project performance;
• H3b: Certiication in project management has
a moderating effect on the relationship between the PM’s skills and project performance.
3 Methodology
The hypotheses and theoretical bases give rise to the hypothetical model shown in Figure 1. Research involving personal characteristics typically forms a competence construct based on knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Brandão & Borges-Andrade, 2007; Brandão, 2012; Carbone et al., 2009).
In this study, we chose to keep the PM personal characteristics directly related to project performance to make the relationships more explicit and so that effects and moderation effects could be directly tested without a second-order competence construct. Moreover, because the skills and knowledge constructs
are formative and the attitudes construct is relexive,
it would not be possible to assemble the model in this manner (Hair et al., 2014, p. 231).
3.1 Operationalisation of variables and data collection
Attitudes, skills, knowledge, and personality traits are constructs that theoretically affect project performance. The 31 variables studied in the literature (Appendix A) are divided into these constructs: eight
knowledge variables, eight skills variables, ive attitude variables, ive personality trait indicators,
four performance construct variables, and one
dichotomous certiication variable.
Performance is measured by the success of the
projects (Q4n), in relexive form. Project success
is decomposed into four types of success: cost, time, quality, and scope. The attitude measurement
model, formed by the Q3n variables, is relexive;
attitudes are generally viewed as a predisposition to respond in a favourable or unfavourable manner to
an object and are typically measured using relexive
indicators (Jarvis et al., 2003). The measurement models formed by the Q1n, Q2n, and Q5N variables are formative and form the knowledge, skills, and personality traits constructs. The questions included in the questionnaires have been formulated to meet
the relexive and formative requirements.
Data collection was conducted by means of
an online questionnaire, divided into ive parts. The irst fourparts contained questions about the
PM’s knowledge, skills, attitudes, and personality
traits. The ifth and inal part of the questionnaire
consisted of questions about the success of the last three projects from the perspective of cost, quality, scope, and time.
Each survey question was linked to one of the
26 variables identiied in the theoretical framework, using a ive-point Likert scale. The four questions
relating to success used a numerical scale ranging from 0 to 3, representing the number of successfully completed projects, considering the last three projects from the perspectives of cost, scope, quality, and time. There was a question about project management
certiication at the start of the questionnaire.
The survey was applied to professionals working in project management in Brazil between the months of September and December 2015. The questionnaire was sent to project management associations in the south-eastern Brazilian states. A total of 244 completed questionnaires were collected from PMs aged between 25 and 60. A total of 96% of them had a college degree, distributed in the areas of information technology (61%), engineering (23%), administration (11%), and other (5%). A total of 79% of professionals responding to the survey had managed projects for more than two years, and 60% had done so for more
than ive years. A total of 66% worked in the private
sector and 34% in the public sector. The percentage
of PMs with certiication in project management was
40%, 75% of whom worked in the private sector.
3.2 Measurement models
The sample used 244 observations; therefore,
this amount was suficient to meet the minimum
sample size, which should be 10 times greater than the greatest number of formative construct indicators (Hair et al., 2014, p. 20). The knowledge and skills constructs had eight indicators, indicating a minimum requirement of 80 observations. For the moderation
analysis, the number of certiied and non-certiied
professionals also exceeded 80 observations. The proposed hypothetical model was investigated using the structural equation modelling technique of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 3 software (Ringle et al.,
2015). PLS-SEM was used to evaluate the relexive
measurement model of the performance and attitudes constructs and to evaluate the knowledge, skills, and personality formative constructs.
In the relexive construct performance, internal
consistency showed a composite reliability of
0.8911. In the attitudes construct, the igure was
0.8531, which is within the satisfactory range of 0.700-0.900 established by Nunnally & Bernstein (1994). Convergent validity, used as a reliability indicator, was measured using the factor loadings
of the relexive indicators. The load factor for
the Q3a indicator was 0.6302, i.e., below the 0.708 indicated in the literature (Hair et al., 2014, p. 103). However, when this indicator was removed, the construct lost content validity, and its removal did not result in any great increase in the average variance extracted (AVE) (0.5389-0.6075) or composite reliability (0.8531-0.8608). It was therefore decided to retain this indicator (Hair et al., 2014, p. 102). Convergent validity was also evaluated using the AVE index for the performance and attitude constructs (0.5647 and 0.6719), falling within the convergent validity criteria that, according to Hair et al. (2014, p. 103), should exceed 0.50.
The discriminant validity of the relexive constructs
was evaluated using cross-loads analysis and the Fornell-Larcker criteria, in which the square root of the AVE must be greater than the correlations with the other constructs (Hair et al., 2014, p. 105). Recent studies have examined the cross-loads and Fornell-Larcker criteria and indicated that in certain situations, they may not be reliable (Henseler et al., 2015). To circumvent this problem, a new technique known as the Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio was proposed. This is available in SmartPLS 3. The bootstrapping procedure was used for the HTMT criterion, with 5,000 interactions from which the
conidence interval was derived, which in this study
was 95%. After execution, no construct indicated discriminant validity problems. Because it is a new technique, traditional validations are still considered to be the standard for discriminant validity analysis and were thus also analysed (Hair et al., 2015, p.119). The discriminant validity criteria were considered to be met. Based on these results, all
relexive indicators for the performance and attitude
constructs were maintained.
To evaluate the formative measurement models, a multi-collinearity evaluation was performed using
the variance inlation factor (VIF), which according
to Hair et al. (2011, p. 145) should be less than 5.0. All indicators showed VIF values under 5.0, ranging from 1.211 for the Q5B indicator to 2.347 for the Q4C indicator.
The relevance and signiicance of the weightings
were evaluated using the bootstrapping function with 5,000 interactions. Only the weights of the Q1a, Q1c, Q5a, Q5b, and Q5c indicators were
signiicant, whereas the Q1b, Q1d, Q1e, Q1f, q1g,
Q1h, Q2a, Q2c, q2d, Q2e, Q2f, and Q2h indicators had a factorial load above 0.500, and the Q2b, Q2g, and Q5d indicators had a factorial load below
0.500 but were signiicant at 0.01. All weightings
of all formative indicators showed absolute and/or relative importance (Hair et al., 2014, pp. 127-129), and for this reason, all formative indicators were kept in the model.
4 Analysis of the structural model
and results
After adjusting the measurement models, the structural model was analysed using the path
coeficients shown in Table 1. Only the personality
path coeficient was not signiicant in regard to
performance. However, when analysing the overall effects, it was noted that by affecting attitudes, personality had an indirect effect on performance. The effect shown was as follows: 0.1608, with a
p-value of 0.0378, i.e., signiicant.
Figure 2 illustrates the path coeficients after analysing the proposed model.
The R2 determination coeficient for the attitudes construct was 0.736, personality traits were able to explain 73.6% of PM attitudes, and the score for the performance construct was 0.399. Skills were able to account for approximately 39.99% of project performance. The competencies represented by skills,
knowledge, and attitudes showed signiicant path coeficients, and these results allowed the proposed
4.1 Hypothesis test for diference in means To conirm that the path coeficients were not
equal and to thus allow comparison between them, a difference in means hypothesis test was performed on the standard errors generated in the execution of the bootstrapping technique. The test results are shown in Table 2, which shows that the hypotheses of equal means were rejected. It is therefore possible to perform a comparison of means.
4.2 Moderation analysis
Although it was not originally considered to be a
hypothesis of this research, the irst analysis performed was the inluence of the dichotomous variable Q6a (certiication) on project management performance,
which was added as a predictor variable to ascertain whether there was any direct impact on project performance. The results allow inferences to be drawn in regard to the PM’s knowledge and skills. Adding this variable led to a small change in the construct’s R2 value, from 0.399 to 0.398. The path coeficients changed, as shown in Table 3.
The certiication variable path coeficient was not signiicant, but it is clear that other coeficients were slightly inluenced by the entry of this variable.
The second test performed was the moderation analysis in relation to knowledge. The R2 value was 0.414; the other results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 3.
The moderator effect between knowledge and
performance was signiicant. There was also an inluence on the determination coeficient.
The third moderation analysis was conducted between skills and project management performance. The R2 was 0.4003; the other results are shown in Table 5 and Figure 4.
Figure 2. Path coeficients. Source: Authors (2016).
Chart 1. Evaluation of hypotheses.
Hypothesis Results
H1a H1a: The PM’s attitudes affect project performance Supported H1b H1b: The PM’s skills affect project performance Supported H1c H1c: The PM’s knowledge affects project performance Supported H2a H2a: The PM’s personality traits affect project performance Rejected H2b H2b: The PM’s personality traits affect the PM’s attitudes Supported
Source: Authors (2016).
Table 2. T-test - hypothesis of equality of means.
Mean Standard Deviation Error P-Value
Attitudes/Knowledge -0.087 0.131 0.006 0.000
Knowledge/Skills 0.071 0.131 0.006 0.000
Skills/Attitudes -0.017 0.128 0.006 0.004
Source: Authors (2016).
Table 1. Path coeficients.
Path Path Coeficient p-value
Attitudes - Performance 0.563 0.0153
Knowledge - Performance 0.228 0.0006
Skills - Performance 0.128 0.0332
Personality Traits - Attitudes 0.858 0.0000
Personality Traits - Performance -0.236 0.9787
The moderator effect between skills and
performance was signiicant only at 0.10, with a smaller inluence on the performance determination coeficient. Chart 2 summarises the evaluation of the moderation hypotheses.
5 Discussion
The PM’s personal characteristics partially explain project performance, as shown by the determination
coeficient R2 = 0.399. This result was expected, and
there are potentially other elements that can inluence
project performance. The literature contains factors such as: project management methodology; resource
availability; external inluences, such as economic
issues, the government, and other events beyond the
PM’s control; among others (Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Cooke-Davies, 2002).
Hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c could not be rejected; thus, there is empirical evidence that the PM’s attitudes, skills, and knowledge affect project performance. These results are in line with the
various scientiic studies that argue that the PM’s skills and personal characteristics inluence project
management and the results thereof (Haggerty, 2000; Lampel, 2001; Brill et al., 2006; Fisher, 2011; Fotwe & McCaffer, 2000; El-Sabaa, 2001).
Attitudes could be observed as having a greater weighting (0.563) on the effect on project performance, followed by knowledge (0.228) and skills (0.128). The results indicate that improvements in attitudes
Chart 2. Evaluation of moderation hypotheses.
Hypothesis Results
H3a H3a: Certiication in project management has a moderating effect on the relationship
between the PM’s knowledge and project management performance. Supported
H3b H3b: Certiication in project management has a moderating effect on the relationship
between the PM’s skills and project management performance. Supported Source: Authors (2016).
Table 3. Path coeficients after addition of the certiication variable.
Path Path Coeficient p-value
Attitudes -> Performance 0.598 0.0203
Knowledge -> Performance 0.227 0.0002
Skills -> Performance 0.137 0.0137
Personality Traits -> Attitudes 0.778 0.0000
Certiication -> Performance 0.050 0.5125
Source: Authors (2016).
Table 4. Knowledge path coeficients moderation.
Path Path Coeficient p-value
Attitudes -> Performance 0.5136 0.0500
Knowledge -> Performance 0.2153 0.0005
Skills -> Performance 0.1485 0.0132
Personality Traits -> Attitudes 0.8782 0.0000
Certiication -> Performance 0.0309 0.7688
Moderator Effect 0.1542 0.0045
Source: Authors (2016).
Table 5. Abilities path coeficients moderation.
Path Path Coeficient p-value
Attitudes -> Performance 0.5428 0.0500
Knowledge -> Performance 0.2329 0.0002
Skills -> Performance 0.1328 0.0369
Personality Traits -> Attitudes 0.8782 0.0000
Certiication -> Performance 0.379 0.7595
Moderator Effect 0.0680 0.0723
and knowledge generate greater effects on project performance. Skills, representing the PM’s professional experience (Chart 1), have less effect on project performance.
Hypothesis H2a was rejected, and therefore, we can infer that the PM’s personality traits do not affect project performance. However, hypothesis H2b was supported, indicating alignment with the theoretical basis on attitudes (Durand, 2006; Bagozzi et al., 2002). Because the PM’s personality traits affect her attitudes, they have an indirect effect on project performance, and therefore, they are nonetheless an important factor to be considered.
One cannot empirically state that certiication
in project management directly affects project performance. However, the moderating effect represented by hypotheses H3a and H3b could not
be rejected; thus, certiication in project management
would appear to have a moderating effect on the PM’s knowledge and skills. These results corroborate
scientiic studies indicating that the use and knowledge of methodologies inluence the PM’s skills and
knowledge and, consequently, project results and performance (Hartman & Skulmoski, 1999).
Based on the conclusions drawn from this scientiic
study, it is clear that the PM’s personal characteristics have a significant effect on performance and, consequently, on project results. The selection and training processes for these professionals should focus on detecting and developing these characteristics to increase practical project results and organisational
strategies. Certiication in project management
does not directly guarantee improvement in project performance, but it has a moderating effect and can serve as a stimulating factor in improving the relationship between the PM’s skills and knowledge, thereby having an effect on results.
6 Conclusions
This study achieved its goal of presenting PM
competencies that inluence project performance.
The results showed evidence that the PM’s personal characteristics of knowledge, attitudes, and skills
have a signiicant impact and may partially explain
project performance.
The personal characteristics, attitudes, knowledge, and skills have different effects on project performance, and therefore, it is concluded that they should be prioritised differently when seeking improvements in project performance. Attitudes must take priority, followed by knowledge and then skills.
Two points in particular appear to be relevant;
irst, the fact that the PM’s personality traits do not
have a direct effect on project performance but have
a signiicant effect on the PM’s attitudes dimension.
They thus have an indirect effect on project performance.
The second point is the evidence that certiication in
project management does not directly affect project performance but moderates the relationship between skills and knowledge and performance. This provides
evidence as to how certiication can inluence a
project’s outcome.
These results pave the way for further research on elements linked to the characteristics and skills of these professionals. They draw the attention of researchers in administration towards investing in studies on the PM’s skills and personal characteristics, thus contributing to improvements in project results and, consequently, to the organisation’s results. In the future, the measurement and structural models of this work may be replicated in other studies to perform
a conirmatory analysis of the aspects covered in
this research.
A limitation of this study is that the sample generated by this survey had a high proportion of professionals engaged in information technology-related projects.
Figure 3. Path coeficients. Source: Authors (2016).
This aspect may have created a bias that to some
extent may make it dificult to generalise the indings.
References
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personalitty and behavior. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Allport, G. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. England: Harcourt College Publishers.
Anantatmula, V. (2015). Strategies for enhancing project performance. Journal of Management Engineering, 31(6), 1-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000369.
Artto, K. A. (2000). What do you manage: processes or personnel’s competencies for managing the processes? Project Management Journal, 6(1), 4-9.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6.
Australian Institute of Project Management – AIPM. (1996). National competency standards for project management. Sydney: AIPM.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, R. J. (2002). The social psychology of consumer behavior. Philadelphia: Open Universty Press.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x.
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediating effects of goal setting. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(5), 715-722. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.5.715.
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3), 141-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00064-X.
Bordovskaia, N., & Kostromina, S. (2013). Personal features and research of potencial students. The European Journal of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 33(12), 1284-1293.
Brandão, H. P. (2012). Mapeamento de competências: métodos, técnicas e aplicações em gestão de pessoas. São Paulo: Atlas.
Brandão, H. P., & Borges-Andrade, J. E. (2007). Causas e efeitos da expressão competência no trabalho: para entender melhor a noção de competência. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 8(3), 32-49.
Brasil. Ministério do Trabalho. (2015). Classiicação Brasileira de Ocupações: CBO. Brasília. Recuperado em 25 de agosto de 2015, de http://www.mtecbo.gov. br/cbosite/pages/home.jsf
Brill, J. M., Bishop, M. J., & Walker, A. E. (2006). The competencies and characteristics required of an effective project manager: a web-based Delphi study. Association for Educational Communications and Technology, 54(2), 115-140.
Buchaman, D., & Huczynski, A. (1997). Organizational behaviour: an introductory text (3. ed.). London: Prentice Hall.
Carbone, P., Brandão, H. P., Leite, J. B. D., & Vilhena, R. M. P. (2009). Gestão por competência e gestão do conhecimento (3. ed.). Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00067-9.
Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management competence. International Journal of Project Management, 23(1), 7-16. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.06.005.
Durand, T. (2006). L’alchimie de la compétence. Revue Française de Gestion., 160, 261-292.
Dutra, J. S. (2001). Gestão do desenvolvimento e da carreira por competência: gestão por competências: um modelo avançado para o gerenciamento de pessoas. São Paulo: Gente.
Ebbesen, J., & Hope, A. J. (2013). Re-imagining the iron triangle: embedding sustainability into project constraints. Project Management World Journal, 2(3), 1.
El-Sabaa, S. (2001). The skills and career path of an effective project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 19, 183-196.
Fisher, E. (2011). What practitioners consider to be the skills and behaviours of an effective people project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 994-1002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.09.002.
Fleury, M. T. L. (2002). A gestão de competência e a estratégia organizacional. In M. T. Fleury (Ed.), As pessoas na organização. São Paulo: Gente.
Fotwe, F. T., & McCaffer, R. (2000). Developing project management competency: perspectives from the construction industry. International Journal of Project Management, 18(2), 111-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0263-7863(98)90075-8.
Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992). Measuring project success. Project Management Journal, 23(1), 8-17.
Gaddis, O. P. (1959). The project manager. Harvard Business Review, 37(3), 89-97.
Goldberg, L. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: the big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229. PMid:2283588. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.
Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1.
Grygus, I., & Prusik, K. (2015). Mouding of professional and personal features of a character of future specialists on health. Global Journal of Advanced Research., 2(1), 41-43.
Haggerty, N. (2000). Understanding the link between IT project manager skills and project success research in progress. Illinois: SIGCPR.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2. ed.). California: Sage.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 39-152. http://dx.doi. org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (1. ed.). California: Sage.
Hartman, F., & Skulmoski, G. (1999). Quest for team competence. Project Management Journal, 5(1), 10-15.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Hurt, M., & Thomas, J. (2009). Building value through sustainable project management offices. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 55-72. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/pmj.20095.
Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: the Big Five revisited. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 869-879. PMid:11125652. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.6.869.
Ika, L. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 6-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20137.
Isik, Z., Arditi, D., Dikmen, I., & Birgonul, M. T. (2009).
Impact of corporate strengths / weaknesses on project management competencies. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6), 629-637. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.10.002.
Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/376806.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). Big Five Inventory (BFI). In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102-138). New York: Guilford Press.
Kerzner, H. (2010). Gestão de projetos: as melhores práticas. São Paulo: Artmed.
Lampel, J. (2001). The core competencies of effective project execution: the challenge of diversity. International Journal of Project Management, 19(8), 471-483.
Le Boterf, G. (2003). Desenvolvendo a competência dos proissionais. Porto Alegre: Bookman-Artmed. Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes to project management,
it’s the people that matter: an empirical analysis of project management in Germany. In Hartman, F., Jergeas, G., & Thomas, J. The nature and role of projects in the next 20 years: research issues and problems. Calgary: University of Calgary.
Lim, C., & Mohamed, M. (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00040-4.
Lustri, D., Miuri, I. K., & Takahachi, S. (2005). Gestão do conhecimento: um modelo conceitual para o desenvolvimento de competências. Inteligência Empresarial, 25, 20-27.
McCrae, R., & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175-215. PMid:1635039. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.
Milis, K., & Mercken, R. (2002). Success factors regarding the implementation of ICT investment projects. International Journal of Production Economics, 80(1), 105-117. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(02)00246-3.
Nicholson, N. (2000). Executive instinct: managing the human animal in the information age. New York: Hardcover.
Nunnally, C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3. ed.). San Francisco: McGraw Hill.
O’Brochta, M. (2002). Project success: what are the criteria and whose opinion counts? In Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars and Symposiums. San Antonio: PMI.
Pérez, A., & Rodríguez del Bosque, I. (2013). Customer personal features as determinants of the formation process of corporate social responsibility perceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 30(10), 903-917. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20654.
Pires, A. K. (2005). Gestão por competências em organizações de governo: mesa redonda de pesquisa-ação. Brasília: ENAP.
Posner, B. (1987). What it takes to be a good project manager. Project Management Journal, 18(1), 51-54.
Project Management Institute – PMI. (2012). A guide to the project management body of knowledge: Pmbok® guide (5. ed.). Pennsylvania: PMI.
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(2), 243-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537320903498587.
Thomas, J., & Mengel, T. (2008). Preparing project managers to deal with complexity – advanced project management education. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 304-315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ijproman.2008.01.001.
Turner, J. R., & Huemann, M. (2001). Project management education in project-oriented societies. Internatinal Project Management Journal, 7(1), 7-13.
Williams, T. (2005). Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52(4), 497-508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ TEM.2005.856572.
Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 6(3), 164-170. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9.
Zarifian, P. (2003). O modelo da competência: trajetória histórica, desaios atuais e propostas (pp. 192). São Paulo: Senac.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3 Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. Recuperado em 20 de abril de 2016, de http://www.smartpls.com
Sbragia, R., Maximiano, A. C., & Kruglianskas, I. (1986). O GP: seu papel e habilidades. Revista de Administração, 26(4), 21-24.
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E. (2009). História da psicologia moderna. São Paulo: Cengage Learning.
Scott-Young, C., & Samson, D. (2008). Project success and project team management: evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 749-766. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jom.2007.10.006.
Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2009). Ten facet scales for the Big Five Inventory: Convergence with NEO PI-R facets, self-peer agreement, and discriminant validity.Journal of Research in Personality, 43(1), 84-90. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2008.10.002.
Appendix A. Electronic questionnaire.
Knowledge
I have knowledge in; of … References
Q1a Project estimates Lampel (2001)
Q1b Project management tools and techniques Haggerty (2000); Lampel (2001); Fotwe & McCaffer (2000); Brill et al. (2006) Q1c Project success measurements
Brill et al. (2006) Q1d Writing proposals
Q1e Technology assets
Lampel (2001) Q1f Multidisciplinary topics
Q1g Politics or culture external to the organisation Brill et al. (2006)
Q1h Partners Brill et al. (2006); Lampel (2001)
Skills
I have skills in ... References
Q2a Learning Lampel (2001)
Q2b Creating and innovating Fotwe & McCaffer (2000); Brasil (2015); Kerzner (2010)
Q2c Analytical reasoning Fotwe and McCaffer (2000) Q2d Knowing how to reason logically El-Sabaa (2001)
Q2e Communicating effectively Fotwe & McCaffer (2000); Fisher (2011); Kerzner (2010); El-Sabaa (2001)
Q2f Being goal-oriented El-Sabaa (2001)
Q2g Understanding the relationship between the project
and industry and the community El-Sabaa (2001) Q2h Evaluating complex situations Lampel (2001)
Attitudes
I act ... References
Q3a In an organised manner Thomas & Mengel (2008) Q3b By sharing credit for success Brill et al. (2006)
Q3c In a lexible manner El-Sabaa (2001)
Q3d Persistently El-Sabaa (2001); Kerzner (2010)
Q3e With high self-esteem El-Sabaa (2001)
Performance
In regard to my last three projects, how often have I been successful in regard to …
References
Q4a Time
Kerzner (2010); Ika (2009); PMI (2012); Ebbesen & Hope (2013)
Q4b Cost Q4c Quality Q4d Scope
Personality
The following items correspond to my most frequent actions and behaviour …
References
Q5a I am open to change
John & Srivastava (1999) Q5b I am meticulous and careful
Q5c I am emotionally unstable Q5d I am extroverted
Q5e I am agreeable
Certiication References
Q6a How long have you held or did you hold project
